1505502 (Refugee)

This matter concerned applications for protection visas made by a husband, wife, and their children, which had been refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration. The applicants sought review of this decision before the Tribunal. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka for reasons recognised by the *Refugees Convention*, or alternatively, whether their removal from Australia would expose them to a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka for one or more of the five Convention grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Secondly, if a Convention nexus was not established, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Sri Lanka, the applicants faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the applicant wife regarding alleged harassment by thugs associated with an individual involved in underworld activities and with connections to a public official. The Tribunal noted her claims of being assaulted and that police had been unresponsive. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence that the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Consequently, the Tribunal found that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicants under the *Refugees Convention*. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas.